1. Field of the Invention
This invention relates to the field of teaching machines and is more particularly directed to portable, self-powered teaching machines which both instruct and interrogate the student by means of magnetic tape and indicia bearing panels which are inserted into the machine.
2. Description of the Prior Art
Prior art within the field of teaching machines is replete with devices, ranging from the uncomplex, U.S. Pat. No. 3,699,668, for example, to the relatively complex, U.S. Pat. No. 3,664,037, for example. The rationale, in most cases, is to offer the student the optimal one-to-one tutorial relationship, whereby the teaching machine temporarily takes the place of the teacher. Any educational assistance which can be gleaned by utilization of teaching machines is educationally attractive, since most teachers are assigned classes of 25 to 35 students and physically cannot interact on a one-to-one basis with each student for the time they wish. Most teachers are acutely aware of each of their students' mastery of the curriculum at any given time, and know exactly what type and how much remedial or enrichment instruction will be most beneficial to the student. The teacher's dilemma, thus, becomes one of finding time to offer this remedial or enrichment instruction, and it is here that teaching machines--whether uncomplex or complex--become the sine qua non in the modern classroom.
Although the prior art reveals a plethora of excellent teaching machines offering audio, visual or a combination of the two modes of instruction, many of the machines suffer from one or more distinct disadvantages. Some are too limited in scope or inflexible in application. Some require special working areas and power outlet availability. Others require special room light conditions, for example, if a slide projector is utilized. Still others are difficult to maintain and require considerable teacher time before, during, or following operation of the device, which weakens the entire concept of automated instruction. Many teaching machines, no matter how effective or sophisticated, require more funds than most school districts can afford. Last of all, a major disadvantage of all teaching machines is the utilization of multiple choice evaluation of what the student has learned. Multiple choice questions cannot be relied upon for a true evaluation of learning without incorporating an element of guesswork, particularly where the total multiple response choices are few in number. It is a rare circumstance in real life when one has four or five readily available selections from which to choose a correct answer to a query, whereby it is known that one of the selections will be correct. A teaching machine offering multiple choice evaluation is, therefore, far from efficient in producing a maximal learning situation, which, of course, should be the goal of any teaching machine.